There is what Pat thinks:

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a/u/1/dbJ4CPWi_pg

Pat Condell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Condell in January 2006.PseudonymEddie Zibin (used in the 1980s)^[1]Birth namePatrick CondellBorn23 November 1949 (1949-11-23) (age 60)

Ireland^[2]MediumwriterNationalityBritishYears active1980s–present^[1][3]GenresTopical comedy/satireSubject(s)Religion, religious/political satireWebsitewww.patcondell.net

youtube.com/patcondellPatrick Condell (born November 23, 1949) is a British writer and internet personality. He performed alternative comedy shows during the 1980s and 1990s in the United Kingdom, and won a Time Out Comedy Award in 1991. He was also a regular panellist on BBC Radio 1's "Loose Talk".

From early 2007, he began posting short monologues denouncing religion to a number of video sharing websites. His videos have been featured on many websites, including YouTube and LiveLeak. They have also been published to DVD, and also as a book of video transcripts.^[4] As of August 2010^[update], Pat Condell's youtube channel has over 129,000 subscribers and over 24 million views.

Was Jesus gay?

Pat Condell is good, he has made some particularly good rants against the Muslim faith. Wouldn't surprise me if he has had a few death threats in his time.

Is Satan Catholic?

More on Islamic hardliners:

I think he's no better than those he decries. Intolerance is intolerance no matter from what quarter it comes.

I think he's no better than those he decries. Intolerance is intolerance no matter from what quarter it comes.

Should everything be tolerated? I ask, and I am not sure of the answer.

Ultimately, it boils down to morals and personal preferences, and if we accept that morals are only opinions (akin to personal preferences), and if we also accept that everyone is entitled to their opinion........ then I suppose we should indeed be tolerant of everything.

But I see a problem with that line of reasoning.

Your freedoms end where they encroach on my freedoms.

Should I worry about your freedoms where they encroach on another person? Or is that none of my business?

So many questions, so few answers.

I think he's no better than those he decries. Intolerance is intolerance no matter from what quarter it comes.

Listen more carefully. He is only "intolerant" of those that are hurting others with their ignorance. He is quite "tolerant" of religions and ideologies that aren't - even if he does not agree with their views.

I like this guy no-nonsense rants.He is not only ranting at Muslims, not only at Catholics or Christians.

Imo he's ranting at stupidity and ignorance.

A good fight against stupidity and ignorance is just what every decent man should do in his life.Starting fro himself of course.

I don't think i'm going to listen to all his speeches, but it seems this guy is not a hypocrite at all.

:jap:

Since I have UG on ignore, I am not certain what the gist of the OP is about. Obviously I have picked up on Pat Condell.......so I sincerely hope I am not detracting from the OP when I broach this...it just seems that the thread could be going this way:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, who has written a book on the subject titled, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.

The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2^[1]; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection.

A number of scientists and researchers are highly critical of this theory; Carl Zimmer, writing in Scientific American, questions why "Hamer rushed into print with this book before publishing his results in a credible scientific journal."^[2] In his book, Hamer backs away from the title and main hypotheses by saying "Just because spirituality is partly genetic doesn't mean it is hardwired."^[3]

(BTW, I tend to refer to the "god gene" as the "gullibility gene" because it appears that the "spiritual" and "religious" (as pertains to this gene) are also gullible to indoctrination....even though it's likely that the gullibility factor is due to an entirely different gene/set of genes)

I think he's no better than those he decries. Intolerance is intolerance no matter from what quarter it comes.

One day, when the world's human population finally wakes up, religion will be outlawed for the dangerous, damaging scam that it is.

Perhaps he is intolerant, rightly so in my opinion. He certainly isn't hurting anybody anyway.

I think he's no better than those he decries. Intolerance is intolerance no matter from what quarter it comes.

One day, when the world's human population finally wakes up, religion will be outlawed for the dangerous, damaging scam that it is.

Perhaps he is intolerant, rightly so in my opinion. He certainly isn't hurting anybody anyway.

He's hurting the feelings of the righteous.

Boo hoo hoo.

But although I agree with you about the world waking up to the dangers and scamishness....I think that for most religions Pat is right when he spoke about religion having the ability to give an individual inner peace.

When we consider the "god gene", and the potential for religion to heal and promote social utopia, perhaps religion will always be inevitable and never outlawed successfully....and perhaps that is as it should be.

I'm happier to have as my neighbour a devout follower of (insert religion) who follows the spirit of his holy lessons and not the preached politically motivated sermons, rather than an atheist who couldn't care less about society.

I think he's no better than those he decries. Intolerance is intolerance no matter from what quarter it comes.

One day, when the world's human population finally wakes up, religion will be outlawed for the dangerous, damaging scam that it is.

Perhaps he is intolerant, rightly so in my opinion. He certainly isn't hurting anybody anyway.

He's hurting the feelings of the righteous.

Boo hoo hoo.

But although I agree with you about the world waking up to the dangers and scamishness....I think that for most religions Pat is right when he spoke about religion having the ability to give an individual inner peace.

When we consider the "god gene", and the potential for religion to heal and promote social utopia, perhaps religion will always be inevitable and never outlawed successfully....and perhaps that is as it should be.

I'm happier to have as my neighbour a devout follower of (insert religion) who follows the spirit of his holy lessons and not the preached politically motivated sermons, rather than an atheist who couldn't care less about society.

Its not true to say all athiests care only for themselves. Nor can you say all those who follow a religious code are good people. All I can say is if we observe some form of religious teaching as a guidance on how we behave and treat others then its no bad thing.

Organised religion and preaching leave me cold however and using religion to form a 'band of brothers' mentality is just pathetic. But then how many stupid and gullible people are there out there? Just ask any door to door salesman....

I think he's no better than those he decries. Intolerance is intolerance no matter from what quarter it comes.

One day, when the world's human population finally wakes up, religion will be outlawed for the dangerous, damaging scam that it is.

Perhaps he is intolerant, rightly so in my opinion. He certainly isn't hurting anybody anyway.

He's hurting the feelings of the righteous.

Boo hoo hoo.

But although I agree with you about the world waking up to the dangers and scamishness....I think that for most religions Pat is right when he spoke about religion having the ability to give an individual inner peace.

When we consider the "god gene", and the potential for religion to heal and promote social utopia, perhaps religion will always be inevitable and never outlawed successfully....and perhaps that is as it should be.

I'm happier to have as my neighbour a devout follower of (insert religion) who follows the spirit of his holy lessons and not the preached politically motivated sermons, rather than an atheist who couldn't care less about society.

Its not true to say all athiests care only for themselves. Nor can you say all those who follow a religious code are good people. All I can say is if we observe some form of religious teaching as a guidance on how we behave and treat others then its no bad thing.

Organised religion and preaching leave me cold however and using religion to form a 'band of brothers' mentality is just pathetic. But then how many stupid and gullible people are there out there? Just ask any door to door salesman....

I did not say, and I would never say, that "all athiests care only for themselves". Nor did I suggest that "all those who follow a religious code are good people.".

I mentioned my preference for a neighbour out of two specific types of religious or atheistic people. I thought that the fanatical nuts or the decent non-believers were a given.

I think there are alot of gullible people. Religious followers, political followers,...and probaly atheists that have given up religion for the wrong reasons .... They are all followers.

Exactly smokie.

Being a good and decent person is not exclusive to the religious nuts, regardless of what they may think. An individual inner peace? The vast majority of atheists that I know are perfectly happy with their life and don't need to worship fairy tales to have a good life.

Whilst I agree with harcourt that religion will never be successfully outlawed, changing its legal status might at least help to curb the indoctrination of young children.

For example:

I find this appalling.

I think there are alot of gullible people. Religious followers, political followers,...and probaly atheists that have given up religion for the wrong reasons .... They are all followers.

I'm not sure what you mean, but maybe thy have just given up religion because they don't believe in it?

Exactly smokie.

Being a good and decent person is not exclusive to the religious nuts, regardless of what they may think. An individual inner peace? The vast majority of atheists that I know are perfectly happy with their life and don't need to worship fairy tales to have a good life.

Whilst I agree with harcourt that religion will never be successfully outlawed, changing its legal status might at least help to curb the indoctrination of young children.

I find this appalling.

All of this 'belonging' and you must believe crap....mate I've had it from relatives...."You don't believe do you?" with crocodile tears in the eyes.....fuc_king laughable. What do you care....really? But hang on don't you care about someone's right to choose their own path?....ummm end of discussion.

It saddens me to see people of any belief sending their kids to faith schools as I believe firmly that these should be abolished and religious teaching generally separated from education. Its not education folks its indoctrination in children.

The guys hilarious and I can relate to a lot he says about the state of the UK

I thought this one was interesting as he seems to beleive Jerusalam belongs ot the Arabs

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/u/57/9Vaw658Bow8

I think there are alot of gullible people. Religious followers, political followers,...and probaly atheists that have given up religion for the wrong reasons .... They are all followers.

I'm not sure what you mean, but maybe thy have just given up religion because they don't believe in it?

Again, I was citing an example of one type of atheist. An atheist that gave up religion because he fell under the spell of a warmongering political leader, for example.

I was in no way generalising about all of them us.

Why are my specific examples taken as generalisations?

I thought this one was interesting as he seems to beleive Jerusalam belongs ot the Arabs

He also strongly supports Israel, but for some strange reason wants them to give Jerusalem to the Arabs. However, he did not do his homework. There has always been a fairly strong Jewish presence there and they were already more than half the population in about 1870. Most of the Arabs that were around moved from other places to work for the Jews. He is a smart guy, but no one is always right.

Interesting topic and I like the guy. I have pretty much lived and believed his point of view for years.

Never heard of this guy before. Just listened to the "was Jesus gay" video. He's one of the biggest bullshit filters I've ever heard. I thought Chomsky was the ultimate and ZeroHedge in the financial world, but I may have to re-evaluate.

He has a very simple common sense view of things. (from this tape) Very watchable and yes, certain people will view him as dangerous. He reminds me of Kali, with a sword in each hand, chopping up nonsense, with a never changing benign expression. He doesn't just chop....he dices too.

Great stuff.

Regards.

One day, when the world's human population finally wakes up, religion will be outlawed for the dangerous, damaging scam that it is.

you are referring to which world/planet/solar system with human population?

I think he's no better than those he decries. Intolerance is intolerance no matter from what quarter it comes.

One day, when the world's human population finally wakes up, religion will be outlawed for the dangerous, damaging scam that it is.

There isn't anything wrong with a little faith. It can be a great thing on a personal level and many people need it. It's the bastards ("leaders" of any organized religion) who take advantage of those who should be outlawed.

I also think there is nothing wrong about faith, i just can't stand fanatics of any kind.

I just read a few words from Carl Sagan, a respected although discussed scientist and writer; scientists are well known to be atheists or agnostic in their majority, but C.S. argues that while there is an obvious intelligent design in the laws of the universe, and although being reductive to describe this design like a omniscient old man with a white beard, the "intelligent design theory" is not enough to fulfill the emotional part in the mind of the human being.

It seems the people in general 'needs' faith, if they take 'God' out of the equation, they 'have' to replace him with something else.

There are many beings in the world and in the universe, if there are smaller beings there must be greater beings too(imho)

Most religions are based on sound logic. The problem lies with the fact that it has to be administered by humans who are weak, lazy, greedy and horny.

Most religions are based on sound logic.

Errrm.

Really?

Most religions are based on sound logic. The problem lies with the fact that it has to be administered by humans who are weak, lazy, greedy and horny.

I'm struggling to think of any logic that religions are based on.

It's all faith and morals, neither of which are logical.

I agree that the human condition belies any religious teaching.

I am guessing that Ian means sound principles